Ex Parte Hyeon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12237174 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/237,174 09/24/2008
68103 7590 07/05/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Byeong-Bae HYEON
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0201-0142 9302
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYEONG-BAE HYEON
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237, 1741
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6, 8-14, 16-20, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a device with touch sensitive pads which
generate touch signals and transmit the signals to a printed circuit board
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. (Br. 2).
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
(PCB) (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A mobile terminal comprising a panel, a printed circuit
board, and a control unit, the mobile terminal comprising:
one or more touch sensor pads disposed on the panel for
detecting a touch of the panel and for generating respective
signals corresponding to the detection;
one or more connection terminals provided with the touch
sensor pads, respectively, the one or more connection terminals
for electrically connecting to one or more interconnection
devices on the printed circuit board, respectively, for applying
the signals from the touch sensor pads to the control unit;
a first housing unit that is operatively combinable with at
least one other housing unit so as to protect the printed circuit
board, and the control unit,
a display unit comprising a first lighting system, wherein
the display unit is operatively controlled by the control unit and
that is configured to display information generated by the control
unit to the user;
one or more touch keys disposed on a front side of the
panel; and
a second lighting system that illuminates at least one of the
touch keys,
wherein the one or more touch sensor pads are disposed
on a rear side on the panel, and
wherein the first housing unit is formed with one or more
through-holes in a surface of the first housing unit, through
which the connection terminals extend, respectively.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
Philipp US 2006/0238513 Al
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Oct. 26, 2006
Claims 1---6, 8-14, 16-20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant's Admitted Prior Art
("AAP A") and Philipp (Final Act. 2-9).
ISSUE 1
Claims 1 and 12
Issue 1 a: Did the Examiner err in finding AAPA teaches or suggests
"one or more touch sensor pads disposed on the panel for detecting a touch
of the panel and for generating respective signals corresponding to the
detection" and "one or more touch keys disposed on a front side of the
panel," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12?
Issue 1 b: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAPA
and Philipp teaches or suggests "a first housing unit that is operatively
combinable with at least one other housing unit so as to protect the printed
circuit board, and the control unit," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claim 12?
Issue 1 c: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of AAP A
and Philipp teaches or suggests "a display unit comprising a first lighting
system, wherein the display unit ... is configured to display information
generated by the control unit to the user" and "a second lighting system that
illuminates at least one of the touch keys," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 12?
3
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
Issue 1 d: Did the Examiner improperly combine AAPA and Philipp in
rejecting claims 1 and 12?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which the appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-11) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 10-17). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue la
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding AAP A teaches or
suggests "one or more touch sensor pads disposed on the panel for detecting
a touch of the panel and for generating respective signals corresponding to
the detection" and "one or more touch keys disposed on a front side of the
panel," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12 (Br. 5---6).
Specifically, Appellant argues AAPA's "touch sensor pad [3] is distinct
from the panel 2 which includes the at least one touch key 2a" (id. (citing
Spec. Fig. 1) ).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, AAP A
teaches a touch sensitive device with a panel having touch keys on its front
side (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Spec. Fig. 1, i-fi-1 3-7) ). The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, AAP A teaches the panel has a touch sensor pad
positioned beneath it (Ans. 10 (citing Spec. Fig. 1, i-fi-15---6)).
4
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
Appellant's argument, that the panel and touch sensor pad cannot be
"distinct" (Br. 6), is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The
claims, reciting "one or more touch sensor pads disposed on the panel," do
not require that the touch sensor pad and panel are integral and do not
preclude a distinct panel and touch sensor pad. We agree with the
Examiner's broad, but reasonable, interpretation that AAPA's touch sensor
pad is "disposed on" the panel (Ans. 10) because the touch sensor pad is
"provided in the housing below the panel" and is aligned with the panel in
order to "measur[ e] electrostatic capacitance" (Spec. i-f 6, Fig. 1 ).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of AAPA and Philipp teaches or suggests "one or more touch
sensor pads disposed on the panel for detecting a touch of the panel and for
generating respective signals corresponding to the detection" and "one or
more touch keys disposed on a front side of the panel," within the meaning
of claims 1 and 12.
Issue lb
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding AAP A teaches or
suggests "a first housing unit that is operatively combinable with at least one
other housing unit so as to protect the printed circuit board, and the control
unit," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12 (Br. 6-7).
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner "asserts that the guide block 22
correspond[ s] to a housing unit" but "guide block 22 of Philipp fails to
protect the printed circuit board and the control unit" and is not "operatively
combinable with at least one other housing unit" (id.).
5
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, AAP A
discloses a housing unit combinable with another housing unit to protect the
PCB and control unit (Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-16-7, Fig. 1); Ans. 12).
The Examiner relies on AAP A, not Philipp, to teach the claimed housing
unit (Ans. 12-13), and Appellant's arguments directed to Philipp's guide
block do not address the Examiner's findings regarding AAP A's housing
unit (Br. 6-7). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of AAP A and Philipp teaches or suggests "a first
housing unit that is operatively combinable with at least one other housing
unit so as to protect the printed circuit board, and the control unit," as recited
in claims 1 and similarly in claim 12.
Issue le
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Philipp teaches "a
display unit comprising a first lighting system, wherein the display unit ...
is configured to display information generated by the control unit to the
user" and "a second lighting system that illuminates at least one of the touch
keys," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12 (Br. 7).
Specifically, Appellant argues Philipp's LEDs are not "a different lighting
system from the others" and Philipp' s "backlit 'on' button" is not a display
unit (id.).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, AAP A
teaches a mobile device having a liquid crystal display (LCD) unit which
displays information to a user and AAP A further teaches LEDs which
illuminate touch keys (Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-13, 6-9, Fig. 1)).
Appellant's arguments directed to Philipp's lighting system (Br. 7) do not
6
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
address the Examiner's finding that AAP A teaches an LCD unit (i.e., a
display unit) and LED illuminated touch buttons (i.e., a second lighting
system) (Final Act. 3; Ans. 14--15). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of AAP A and Philipp teaches or
suggests "a display unit comprising a first lighting system, wherein the
display unit ... is configured to display information generated by the control
unit to the user" and "a second lighting system that illuminates at least one
of the touch keys," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12.
Issue Id
Appellant argues the Examiner erred by improperly combining AAP A
and Philipp. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner engaged in
improper hindsight reasoning because the combination "remov[ es] the touch
sensor pad 3, remov[ es] the plurality of LEDs 4, remov[ es] the reflection
sheet 5a, and add[ s] a lighting system that illuminates at least one of the
touch keys" to the AAP A device (Br. 7). Appellant additionally argues the
combination unnecessarily incorporates Philipp' s connection terminals and
associated through-holes (id. at 6, 8).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Philipp
teaches connection terminals extending through through-holes to
electronically connect a touch sensor pad to a PCB (Ans. 11 (citing Philipp
i-fi-129, 31, 35--40, Figs. 2-3)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Philipp teaches an LED configuration used to illuminate touch keys (Final
Act. 4 (citing Philipp i-f 13)). The Examiner combines AAP A and Philipp to
"provide[] a control panel that is simple and robust, easy to assemble and
can provide for a touch sensitive control panel having an arbitrary curved
7
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
shape ... in which different sensor areas can be individually illuminated"
(Ans. 12 (citing Philipp iTiT 13, 41)).
We are not persuaded the Examiner's motivation is based on
impermissible hindsight because the Examiner's motivation comes from the
references themselves (Ans. 12 (citing Philipp iT 13, 41), 16; Final Act. 4).
The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning -
providing devices with curved touch sensitive control panels and illuminated
touch keys (Ans. 12, 16; Final Act. 4). We agree with the Examiner's
finding that the improvements suggested by Philipp are provided by
modifying AAP A to incorporate Philipp' s connection terminals, associated
through-holes, and lighting system (see Ans. 11-12, 15-16). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight in
combining AAP A and Philipp.
Additionally, Appellant argues the combination is improper because
of "significant differences between the field of endeavor of the present
claimed combination of features and the alleged teachings of Philipp" (Br. 7)
and the "modification marginalizes the design and manufacture of mobile
terminals and the sophistication associated with such design and
manufacture" (id. at 9).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, AAP A and
Philipp are both directed to "touch sensitive control panels utilizing a
plurality of sensor areas (i.e., touch keys)" with "illuminated sensor areas"
(Ans. 15). Furthermore, Philipp is not limited to "home appliance[ s ]," as
Appellant contends; while Philipp provides an example touch control for a
blender, Philipp describes the general purpose application of its touch
controls (see Philipp Title ("TOUCH SENSITIVE CONTROL p ANEL"), Abstract,
8
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
if 46, claim 1 ). Because Philipp' s teachings are not limited to home
appliances and are applicable to touch panels generally, we are not
persuaded Philipp is not in the same field of endeavor as mobile terminals or
that Philipp is not reasonably pertinent to mobile terminal touch panels.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined
AAP A and Philipp.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
AAP A and Philipp.
Remaining Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 16--20
Dependent claims 2---6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are not separately
argued by Appellant and thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims (see Br. 9-10). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2---6, 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Philipp.
ISSUE 2
Claims 23 and 24
Did the Examiner err in finding Philipp teaches "wherein the second
lighting system is disposed on the front side of the printed circuit board such
that the light illuminating from the second lighting system illuminates at
least one of the touch keys through the one or more through-holes formed in
the first housing unit," as recited in claims 23 and 24?
9
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Philipp teaches
"wherein the second lighting system is disposed on the front side of the
printed circuit board such that the light illuminating from the second lighting
system illuminates at least one of the touch keys through the one or more
through-holes formed in the first housing unit," as recited in claims 23 and
24 (Br. 9-10). Specifically, Appellant argues Philipp teaches "that light
from the LEDs 36 travels through a second channel 34" to illuminate touch
keys, but "[s]uch a configuration would lead to greater space and additional
components, both of which fail to consider the tight tolerances and reduced
space associated with the design and manufacture of a mobile terminal" (id.
at 10).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Philipp' s
through-holes include channels which pass LED light to illuminate touch
keys (Final Act. 9 (citing Philipp i-f 40, Fig. 2); Ans. 17).
Appellant's argument, that Philipp's channels require "greater space
and additional components" (Br. 10), is supported only by attorney argument
and Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us that the combination does require greater space and additional
components. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Moreover, Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. The claim does not recite, and therefore does not require, space
limits. Nor does the claim preclude button illumination using Philipp's
through-hole channels. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding Philipp teaches "wherein the second lighting system is
10
Appeal2015-001151
Application 12/237,174
disposed on the front side of the printed circuit board such that the light
illuminating from the second lighting system illuminates at least one of the
touch keys through the one or more through-holes formed in the first
housing unit," as recited in claims 23 and 24.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
AAP A and Philipp.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-14, 16-20, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Appellant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A")
and Philipp is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11